Anthropology is the study of humans as individuals and members of society. "Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the scientific of the humanities."

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Culture: Is it of any scientific value or just a hollowed out concept?

I have posted a link
on several anthropology groups on LinkedIn which lead people to this blog and
my posting, "Anthropology needs a
common professional vocabulary”. I have
received some interesting responses. One, in particular, states

"As
life is dynamic, sop [sic] is the evolution of terminology [sic] to handle the
changes involved. to abandon the meaning of established terminology is to
abandom [sic] the research done using those terms, ..."

leads
me to the following response.

This is a great observation but it doesn't go far
enough. There are unintended consequences as well. As the terminology changes
it also sucks out the underlying insight that promoted its use in the first
place. The terms either become "hollow" or "rarefied" to
the point that they are meaningless.

Take "culture" as used today by the
profession. "Culture" has had a very important role in the evolution
of anthropology and our interpretation of humanity as more than a species of
animal in biology's taxonomy of life. When Tylor defined the term, it meant all
of those traits that seemed to distinguish "humans" from other animal
species. Today, culture is used as an excuse or justification for differences
in behavior especially for minorities (that is ANY sub-group within a larger
group).

Kroeber, borrowing from Spencer, defined
"culture" in terms of its locus in human experience as something that
is "Superorganic". That is, culture is something which exists outside
the organic individual human animal. This insight builds on two terms -- Culture
is the term that Tylor applied to non-literate and pre-literate peoples for
"civilization" and the Superorganic placed the emphasis on Tylor's concept of
"shared values".

Malinowski and his contemporary, Talcott Parsons,
expanded the definition further by linking the organic (biological and
psychology needs) to the Superorganic as the mechanism for "sharing"
and "capturing and preserving" experience. For Malinowski it is the
"institution" and "institutional complex" where this takes
place. The "institution" builds on Tylor and Kroeber by laying the
foundation for structuring the elements in Tylor's "culture" into a
researchable and analytical object defined in terms of its
output/function/purpose in supporting the individual and the group. Culture is to be found in the institutional Chart.

Parsons and his colleagues took a slightly different
approach. They focused on the behavior that leads to the satisfaction of
organic needs and how these are institutionalized in society to form an action
system -- a flow of energy and function that serves to maintain a social
system. And Culture is found in the those elements that make up the Pattern Maintenance function.

All of this is built on the Tylor definition of
"Culture". If we were to take the present day term
"culture" we might and do come to the same conclusion that
differences in "culture" produce differences in behavior at the organic
and societal (supra-organic) level. But today's definitions will not explain
"why?".

Why is this? I would hypothesize that it is because
structural/functionalism fell out of favor in the 1960s and on. It lost its
favor because the stress or focus was on stability. The question was "Why
do cultures persist despite strong environmental pressures from other cultures
to force change?" This is the heart of the work of Edward H. Spicer's
"persistent culture" concept.

In the mid 1960s, in light of the Viet Nam war, civil
rights movement etc. structural/functionalism became associated with a
philosophical position which favored the status quo. Culture is conservative.
The world and its problems of inequality, in the view of many, called for a
radical solution - a solution that would break the gravitational pull of
tradition and culture. The question changed from a "Why?" question to a "How? question. The question thus became a solution. “How can we propel mankind into a more equitable and
"just" orbit?” (The space age was just emerging at this time).

Marxism and other theories that focused on power
relationships took over the social sciences. "Power" replaced
"culture" as the ideological style of the social sciences and has
found a strong home within academic anthropology and its institutions. Rather
than scientific, these theories are divisive. They are loaded with
ideological content.

Anthropology has become fragmented into philosophical camps and concepts, such as "culture", "structure" and "function," have become just so many hollowed out or rarefied words.

Pages

Translate

About Me

I am a professional applied anthropologist who applies a holistic perspective to the art and science of business and life coaching. I believe that your life is your business and your business is your life. Managing both requires understanding and balance, that is, a centrist pragmatic approach to life's problems. My motto is:"You can tell whether a person is clever by their answer; you can tell whether a person is wise by their question."